School turnaround has emerged as a predominant strategy to improve chronically low-performing schools, although the approach remains controversial. This meta-analysis synthesizes results from 35 studies to examine the relationship between school turnaround and various student outcomes. We find that school turnaround is associated with improved attendance, standardized test scores, and graduation rates. When separating the results by the different turnaround models, transformation, turnaround, and restart models are associated with improvements in student test scores. We find no evidence of a significant relationship between school closure or state turnaround conducted under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers and student test scores. We describe how changes in organizational operations, human capital, and the governance and/or management of low-performing schools might have contributed to this observed relationship.
*AbdulkadiroğluA.AngristJ. D.HullP. D.PathakP. A. (2016). Charters without lotteries: Testing takeovers in New Orleans and Boston. The American Economic Review, 106(7), 1878–1920.
2.
AhnS.MyersN. D.JinY. (2012). Use of the estimated intraclass correlation for correcting differences in effect size by level. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 490–502.
3.
*AhnT.VigdorJ. (2014). The impact of no child left behind’s accountability sanctions on school performance: Regression discontinuity evidence from North Carolina (NBER Working Paper No. 20511). National Bureau of Economic Research.
4.
American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40.
5.
AyersJ. (2011). Make rural schools a priority: Considerations for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Center for American Progress.
6.
BanksG. C.KepesS.BanksK. P. (2012). Publication bias: The antagonist of meta-analytic reviews and effective policymaking. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(3), 259–277.
7.
BaroodyK. (2011). Turning around the nation’s lowest-performing schools: Five steps districts can take to improve their chance of success. Center for American Progress.
BerendsM.KirbyS. N.NaftelS.McKelveyC. (2001). Implementation and performance in new American schools: Three years into scale-up. RAND Education.
10.
*BifulcoR.Jr.SchwegmanD. (2020). Who benefits from accountability-driven school closure? Evidence from New York City. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(1), 96–130.
11.
BillgerS. M. (2010). Demographics, fiscal health, and school quality: Shedding light on school closure decisions (IZA Discussion Papers No. 4739). IZA Institute of Labor Economics.
12.
BloomH. S.UntermanR. (2013). Sustained progress: New findings about the effectiveness and operation of small public high schools of choice in New York City. MDRC.
13.
*BonillaS.DeeT. S. (2020). The effects of school reform under NCLB waivers: Evidence from focus schools in Kentucky. Education Finance and Policy, 15(1), 75–103.
14.
BookerK.SassT. R.GillB.ZimmerR. (2011). The effects of charter high schools on educational attainment. Journal of Labor Economics, 29(2), 377–415.
15.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
16.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.
17.
BrighouseH.LaddH. F.LoebS.SwiftA. (2018). Educational goods: Values, evidence, decision-making. The University of Chicago Press.
18.
*BrossW.HarrisD. N.LiuL. (2016). The effects of performance-based school closure and charter takeover on student performance. Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
19.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. The University of Chicago Press.
20.
CalkinsA.GuentherW.BelfioreG.LashD. (2007). The turnaround challenge: Why America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in our worst-performing schools. Mass Insight Education & Research Institute.
21.
CannataM.ReddingC.NguyenT. D. (2019). Building student ownership and responsibility: Examining student outcomes from a research-practice partnership. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(3), 333–362.
22.
CarlsonD.LavertuS. (2016). Charter school closure and student achievement: Evidence from Ohio. Journal of Urban Economics, 95, 31–48.
23.
*CarlsonD.LavertuS. (2018). School improvement grants in Ohio: Effects on student achievement and school administration. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 287–315.
24.
CarruthersC. K. (2012). New schools, new students, new teachers: Evaluating the effectiveness of charter schools. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 280–292.
25.
ChingosM. M.WestM. R. (2015). The uneven performance of Arizona’s charter schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1S), 120S–134S.
26.
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Brookings Institution Press.
27.
CohenB. H. (2013). Explaining psychological statistics (4th ed.). Wiley.
28.
CucchiaraM. B.RooneyE.Robertson-KraftC. (2015). “I’ve never seen people work so hard!” Teachers’ working conditions in the early stages of school turnaround. Urban Education, 50(3), 259–287.
29.
*CumptonG. B. (2015). The effect of policy of reconstitution on student achievement in Texas [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin].
30.
*DeeT. S. (2012, April). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (NBER Working Paper No. 17990). National Bureau of Economic Research.
31.
*DeeT. S.Dizon-RossE. (2017, June). School performance, accountability and waiver reforms: Evidence from Louisiana (NBER Working Paper No. 23463). National Bureau of Economic Research.
32.
DeeT. S.Dizon-RossE. (2019). School performance, accountability, and waiver reforms: Evidence from Louisiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 316–349.
33.
*de la TorreM.AllensworthE.JagesicS.SebastianJ.SalmonowiczM.MeyersC.GerdemanR. D. (2013). Turning around low-performing schools in Chicago. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
34.
*de la TorreM.GwynneJ. (2009). When schools close: Effects on displaced students in Chicago public schools. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
*DoughertyS. M.WeinerJ. M. (2019). The Rhode to turnaround: The impact of waivers to no child left behind on school performance. Educational Policy, 33(4), 555–586.
37.
*DragosetL.ThomasJ.HerrmannM.DekeJ.James-BurdumyS.GraczewskiC.… GiffinJ. (2017). School improvement grants: Implementation and effectiveness (NCEE 2017-4013). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
38.
DukeD. L. (2015). Leadership for low-performing schools: A step-by-step guide to the school turnaround process. Rowman & Littlefield.
39.
ElmoreR. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
40.
*EngbergJ.GillB.ZamarroG.ZimmerR. (2012). Closing schools in a shrinking district: Do student outcomes depend on which schools are closed?Journal of Urban Economics, 71(2), 189–203.
41.
EwingE. L. (2018). Ghosts in the schoolyard: Racism and school closings on Chicago’s south side. The University of Chicago Press.
42.
FinniganK. S.GrossB. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594–629.
43.
*FlowersN.BegumS.CarpenterD. M. H.MulhallP. F. (2017). Turnaround success: An exploratory study of three middle grades schools that achieved positive contextual and achievement outcomes using the schools to watch i3 project. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 40(8), 1–14.
44.
GandhiA. G.SlamaR.ParkS. J.RussoP.WinnerK.BzuraR.JonesW.WilliamsonS. (2018). Focusing on the whole student: An evaluation of Massachusetts’s wraparound zone initiative. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(2), 240–266.
45.
*GoldE.NortonM. H.GoodD.LevinS. (2012). Philadelphia’s renaissance schools initiative: 18 Month interim report. Research for Action.
46.
GoldhaberD.LaveryL.TheobaldR. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293–307.
47.
*GordonM. F.de la TorreM.CowhyJ. R.MooreP. T.SartainL.KnightD. (2018). School closings in Chicago: Staff and student experiences and academic outcomes. University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.
48.
GrissomJ. A.KalogridesD.LoebS. (2015). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 3–28.
49.
GrossB.BookerT. K.GoldhaberD. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), 111–126.
50.
*HallbergK.WilliamsR.SwanlundA.EnoJ. (2018). Short comparative interrupted time series using aggregate school-level data in education research. Educational Researcher, 47(5), 295–306.
51.
HamiltonM. P.HeiligJ. V.PazeyB. L. (2014). A nostrum of school reform? Turning around reconstituted urban Texas high schools. Urban Education, 49(2), 182–215.
52.
HarrisD. N.LiuL.GerryA.Arce-TrigattiP. (2019). How is New Orleans school performance evolving, and why?Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
53.
HedgesL. V. (2009). Effect sizes in nested designs. In CooperH. M.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 337–355). Russell Sage Foundation.
54.
HedgesL. V.HedbergE. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87.
55.
*HeisselJ. A.LaddH. F. (2018). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Economics of Education Review, 62, 302–320.
56.
*HemeltS. W.JacobB. (2017). Differentiated accountability and education production: Evidence from NCLB waivers (NBER Working Paper No. 23461). National Bureau of Economic Research.
57.
*HenryG. T.GuthrieJ. E.TownsendL. W. (2015). Outcomes and impacts of North Carolina’s initiative to turn around the lowest-achieving schools. Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation, University of North Carolina.
58.
HermanR.DawsonP.DeeT.GreeneJ.MaynardR.ReddingS.DarwinM. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide (NCEE 2008-4020). U.S. Department of Education.
59.
HerrmannM.DragosetL.James-BurdumyS. (2014). Are low performing schools adopting practices promoted by school improvement grants?National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
60.
HittD. H.MeyersC. (2017). School turnarounds and the test of time. In MeyersC. V.DarwinM. J. (Eds.), Enduring myths that inhibit school turnaround (pp. 319–338). Information Age Publishing.
61.
HittD. H.WoodruffD.MeyersC. V.ZhuG. (2018). Principal competencies that make a difference: Identifying a model for leaders of school turnaround. Journal of School Leadership, 28(1), 56–81.
62.
HoA. D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351–360.
63.
HochbeinC. (2012). Relegation and reversion: Longitudinal analysis of school turnaround and decline. Journal of Education for Students Places at Risk, 17(1–2), 92–107.
64.
HolmeJ. J.RichardsM. P.JimersonJ. B.CohenR. W. (2010). Assessing the effects of high school exit examinations. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 476–526.
65.
JacobB. (2017). The potential and limits of federal policy: A response to Ladd. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(2), 480–483.
66.
JensenB.FarmerJ. (2013). School turnaround in Shanghai. Center for American Progress.
67.
*KirshnerB.GaertnerM.PozzoboniK. (2010). Tracing transitions: The effect of high school closure on displaced students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 407–429.
68.
Le FlochK. C.O’DayJ.BirmanB.HurlburtS.NayfackM.HalloranC.HulseyL. (2016). Case studies of schools receiving school improvement grants: Final report (NCEE 2016-4002). National Center for Education Evaluation.
69.
LeithwoodK.HarrisA.StraussT. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful leaders transform low-performing schools. Jossey-Bass.
70.
LiCalsiC.PírizD. G. (2016). Evaluation of level 4 school turnaround efforts in Massachusetts—Part 2: Impact of school redesign grants. American Institute for Research.
MalenB.CroningerR.MunceyD.Redmond-JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113–132.
73.
MalenB.RiceJ. K. (2010). School reconstitution and school improvement: Theory and evidence. In PlankD.SchmidtB.SykesG. (Eds.), Handbook on research in education policy (pp. 464–477). American Education Research Association.
74.
MarshJ. A.StrunkK. O.BushS. (2013). Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround: Early implementation findings from the Los Angeles public school choice initiative. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 498–527.
75.
MeyersC. V.LindsayJ.CondonC.WanY. (2012). A statistical approach to identifying schools demonstrating substantial improvement in student learning. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17(1–2), 70–91.
76.
MeyersC. V.SmylieM. (2017). Five myths of school turnaround policy and practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16(3), 502–523.
77.
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. (2005). Final report: High-needs schools—What does it take to beat the odds? [Technical report].
78.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
79.
MurphyJ. F.BleibergJ. F. (2019). School turnaround policies and practices in the U.S.: Learning from failed school reform. Springer.
80.
*NakamotoJ.RiceJ.BojorquezJ. C. (2013). Evaluation of Michigan’s first cohort of 1003(g) school improvement grantees: Outcomes after the first year. WestEd.
81.
*NakamotoJ.WendtS. J.RiceJ. A.BojorquezJ. C.PetrosinoA. (2016). An evaluation of school improvement grants using regression discontinuity and quasi-experimental designs. SAGE.
82.
NguyenT. D.KramerJ. W.EvansB. J. (2019). The effects of grant aid on student persistence and degree attainment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 89(6), 831–874.
83.
*ÖzekU.HansenM.GonzalezT. (2012). A leg up or a boot out? Student achievement and mobility under school restructuring (CALDER Working Paper No. 78). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
84.
*PapayJ. (2017, April). The effects of school turnaround strategies in Massachusetts [Paper presentation]. Association of Public Policy and Management, Miami, FL, United States.
85.
PayneC. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Harvard Education Press.
86.
PeckC.ReitzugU. C. (2014). School turnaround fever: The paradoxes of a historical practice promoted as a new reform. Urban Education, 49(1), 8–38.
87.
PeurachD. J.NeumerskiC. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379–420.
88.
PigottT. D.PolaninJ. R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24–46.
89.
RhimL. M.ReddingS. (2014). The state role in school turnaround: Emerging best practices. WestEd.
90.
SassT. R. (2006). Charter schools and student achievement in Florida. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1), 91–122.
91.
*SawG.SchneiderB.FrankK.ChenI.KeeslerV.MartineauJ. (2017). The impact of being label as a persistently lowest achieving school: Regression discontinuity evidence on consequential school labeling. American Journal of Education, 123(4), 585–613.
92.
SchochetP.CookT.DekeJ.ImbensG.LockwoodJ. R.PorterJ.SmithJ. (2010). Standards for regression discontinuity designs. What Works Clearinghouse.
93.
*SchuelerB. E.GoodmanJ. S.DemingD. J. (2017). Can states take over and turn around school districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 311–332.
94.
*SherrodJ.Dawkins-LawS. (2013). After school closure: Tracking the academic performance of displaced students. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.
95.
*SilanderM. (2012). School closure in New York City [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University].
96.
SimonN. S.JohnsonS. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1–36.
97.
SlavinR. E.CheungA.HolmesG.MaddenN. A.ChamberlainA. (2013). Effects of a data-driven district reform model on state assessment outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 371–396.
98.
SmarickA. (2010). The turnaround fallacy. Education Next, 10(1), 20–26.
99.
SteinerL. M.HasselE. A.HasselB. (2008). School turnaround leaders: Competencies for success [Part of the school turnaround collection from Public Impact]. Public Impact for the Chicago Public Education Fund.
100.
*StrunkK. O.MarshJ. A.HashimA. K.Bush-MecenasS.WeinsteinT. (2016). The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles unified school district. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 251–282.
101.
*SunM.PennerE. K.LoebS. (2017). Resource- and approach-driven multidimensional change: Three-year effects of school improvement grants. American Education Research Journal, 54(4), 607–643.
102.
SundermanG. L.CoghlanE.MintropR. (2017). School closure as a strategy to remedy low performance. National Education Policy Center.
TrujilloT.RenéeM. (2012). Democratic school turnarounds: Pursuing equity and learning from evidence. National Education Policy Center.
105.
ValentineJ. C.KonstantopoulosS.Goldrick-RabS. (2017). What happens to students placed into developmental education? A meta-analysis of regression discontinuity studies. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 806–833.
106.
WelshR. O. (2017). School hopscotch: A comprehensive review in the Unites States. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 475–511.
107.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook (Version 4.1). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
108.
*ZimmerR.HenryG. T.KhoA. (2017). The effects of school turnaround in Tennessee’s achievement school district and innovation zones. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 670–696.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
